1. Mahesh Kumar Gupta v. CIT

363 ITR 300High Court2014#1601 most cited

What is 1. Mahesh Kumar Gupta v. CIT authority for?

The Assessing Officer's "reason to believe" for initiating reassessment under Section 147 must be independently formed based on tangible material, and cannot be a borrowed or mechanical satisfaction derived solely from external sources.

71

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Mahesh Kumar Gupta v. CIT · Section 147 · Section 148 · reason to believe · independent formation of belief · borrowed satisfaction · tangible material · reassessment · live nexus · mechanical belief

Also reported as

95 Taxmann.com 225

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBESection 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69CSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 149

Issues it is cited on

undisclosed foreign income and assetssection 149(1)(c)section 4(2)section 201(3)section 158basection 150unexplained jewellerysection 70beyond four yearssection 149(1)(b)section 18statement under section 132(4)

Judgments citing 1. Mahesh Kumar Gupta v. CIT

JORSS BULLION PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI

ITA 4758/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Omkareswar Chidara

Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "F" BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI OMKARESWAR CHIDARA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 4004/Mum/2025 A.Y: 2017-18 DCIT, CC – 7(1) Vs. Jorss Bullion Pvt Ltd Room No. 653, 6th Floor, AayakarBhawan, MK Road, churchgate, Mumbai. Room No. 4, 1st Floor, 97 Shreenathji Building, Bhuleshwar road, Kalbadevi, Mumbai (Applicant) PAN/GIR No. AABCJ9650P (Respondent) ITA No. 4758/Mum/2025 A.Y: 2017-18 Jorss Bullion Pvt Ltd Vs. DCIT, CC – 7(1) Room No. 4, 1st Floor, 97 Shreenathji Building, Bhuleshwar road, Kalbadevi, Mumbai Room No. 653, 6th Floor, AayakarB…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI vs. JORSS BULLION PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 4004/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Omkareswar Chidara

Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "F" BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI OMKARESWAR CHIDARA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 4004/Mum/2025 A.Y: 2017-18 DCIT, CC – 7(1) Vs. Room No. 653, 6th Floor, AayakarBhawan, MK Road, churchgate, Mumbai. (Applicant) Jorss Bullion Pvt Ltd Room No. 4, 1st Floor, 97 Shreenathji Building, Bhuleshwar road, Kalbadevi, Mumbai PAN/GIR No. AABCJ9650P (Respondent) ITA No. 4758/Mum/2025 A.Y: 2017-18 Jorss Bullion Pvt Ltd Vs. DCIT, CC – 7(1) Room No. 4, 1st Floor, 97 Shreenathji Building, Bhuleshwar road, Kalbadevi, Mumbai Room No. 653, 6th Floor, AayakarB…

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 246/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Anita Rinesh, JCIT
Section 147Section 250

…ndently form a \"reason to\nbelieve,\" and such satisfaction cannot be borrowed from external sources. the AO has\nfailed to demonstrate independent formation of belief as mandated u/s 147. The Hon'ble\nAllahabad High Court in Mahesh Kumar Gupta v. CIT (2014) 363 ITR 300 (All.) held\nthat the \"reason to believe\" must be that of the AO himself, based on his own satisfaction\nderived from tangible material, and not a borrowed satisfaction from third-party reports.\nIn the present case, the reliance solely on incorrect NMS data, without any independent\nenquiry prior to issuance of notice u/s 148, shows that the s…

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 245/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Anita Rinesh, JCIT
Section 147Section 250

…ndently form a \"reason to\nbelieve,\" and such satisfaction cannot be borrowed from external sources. the AO has\nfailed to demonstrate independent formation of belief as mandated u/s 147. The Hon'ble\nAllahabad High Court in Mahesh Kumar Gupta v. CIT (2014) 363 ITR 300 (All.) held\nthat the \"reason to believe\" must be that of the AO himself, based on his own satisfaction\nderived from tangible material, and not a borrowed satisfaction from third-party reports.\nIn the present case, the reliance solely on incorrect NMS data, without any independent\nenquiry prior to issuance of notice u/s 148, shows that the s…

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 244/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Anita Rinesh, JCIT
Section 147Section 250

…ndently form a \"reason to\nbelieve,\" and such satisfaction cannot be borrowed from external sources. the AO has\nfailed to demonstrate independent formation of belief as mandated u/s 147. The Hon'ble\nAllahabad High Court in Mahesh Kumar Gupta v. CIT (2014) 363 ITR 300 (All.) held\nthat the \"reason to believe\" must be that of the AO himself, based on his own satisfaction\nderived from tangible material, and not a borrowed satisfaction from third-party reports.\nIn the present case, the reliance solely on incorrect NMS data, without any independent\nenquiry prior to issuance of notice u/s 148, shows that the s…

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 243/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Anita Rinesh, JCIT
Section 147Section 250

…ndently form a \"reason to\nbelieve,\" and such satisfaction cannot be borrowed from external sources. the AO has\nfailed to demonstrate independent formation of belief as mandated u/s 147. The Hon'ble\nAllahabad High Court in Mahesh Kumar Gupta v. CIT (2014) 363 ITR 300 (All.) held\nthat the \"reason to believe\" must be that of the AO himself, based on his own satisfaction\nderived from tangible material, and not a borrowed satisfaction from third-party reports.\nIn the present case, the reliance solely on incorrect NMS data, without any independent\nenquiry prior to issuance of notice u/s 148, shows that the s…

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. SMT. MANJULABEN BIPINCHANDRA PATEL, BARODA

ITA 50/AHD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

…One Lakh or more. He submitted that this condition was not fulfilled as the AO had not quantified the amount of escapement for the different years in the reason as recorded by him. He further relied on the followings decisions: 1. Mahesh Kumar Gupta vs. CIT, 363 ITR 300 (Allahabad) 2. Novo Nordisk India P. Ltd., [2018] 95 taxmann.com 225 (Kar.) (E) Reopening was barred by limitation – The Ld. Senior Counsel explained that the AO had resorted to Clause (c) of Section 149(1) of the Act 26 I.T.A No. 1894/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2000-01 Page No Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P. Patel & 81 ors. whic…

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. SMT. MANJULABEN BIPINCHANDRA PATEL, BARODA

ITA 49/AHD/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

…One Lakh or more. He submitted that this condition was not fulfilled as the AO had not quantified the amount of escapement for the different years in the reason as recorded by him. He further relied on the followings decisions: 1. Mahesh Kumar Gupta vs. CIT, 363 ITR 300 (Allahabad) 2. Novo Nordisk India P. Ltd., [2018] 95 taxmann.com 225 (Kar.) (E) Reopening was barred by limitation – The Ld. Senior Counsel explained that the AO had resorted to Clause (c) of Section 149(1) of the Act 26 I.T.A No. 1894/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2000-01 Page No Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P. Patel & 81 ors. whic…

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. SMT. MANJULABEN BIPINCHANDRA PATEL, BARODA

ITA 48/AHD/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

…One Lakh or more. He submitted that this condition was not fulfilled as the AO had not quantified the amount of escapement for the different years in the reason as recorded by him. He further relied on the followings decisions: 1. Mahesh Kumar Gupta vs. CIT, 363 ITR 300 (Allahabad) 2. Novo Nordisk India P. Ltd., [2018] 95 taxmann.com 225 (Kar.) (E) Reopening was barred by limitation – The Ld. Senior Counsel explained that the AO had resorted to Clause (c) of Section 149(1) of the Act 26 I.T.A No. 1894/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2000-01 Page No Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P. Patel & 81 ors. whic…

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. SMT. MANJULABEN BIPINCHANDRA PATEL, BARODA

ITA 47/AHD/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

…One Lakh or more. He submitted that this condition was not fulfilled as the AO had not quantified the amount of escapement for the different years in the reason as recorded by him. He further relied on the followings decisions: 1. Mahesh Kumar Gupta vs. CIT, 363 ITR 300 (Allahabad) 2. Novo Nordisk India P. Ltd., [2018] 95 taxmann.com 225 (Kar.) (E) Reopening was barred by limitation – The Ld. Senior Counsel explained that the AO had resorted to Clause (c) of Section 149(1) of the Act 26 I.T.A No. 1894/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2000-01 Page No Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P. Patel & 81 ors. whic…

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. SMT. MANJULABEN BIPINCHANDRA PATEL, BARODA

ITA 46/AHD/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

…One Lakh or more. He submitted that this condition was not fulfilled as the AO had not quantified the amount of escapement for the different years in the reason as recorded by him. He further relied on the followings decisions: 1. Mahesh Kumar Gupta vs. CIT, 363 ITR 300 (Allahabad) 2. Novo Nordisk India P. Ltd., [2018] 95 taxmann.com 225 (Kar.) (E) Reopening was barred by limitation – The Ld. Senior Counsel explained that the AO had resorted to Clause (c) of Section 149(1) of the Act 26 I.T.A No. 1894/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2000-01 Page No Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P. Patel & 81 ors. whic…

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. SMT. MANJULABEN BIPINCHANDRA PATEL, BARODA

ITA 45/AHD/2020[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

…One Lakh or more. He submitted that this condition was not fulfilled as the AO had not quantified the amount of escapement for the different years in the reason as recorded by him. He further relied on the followings decisions: 1. Mahesh Kumar Gupta vs. CIT, 363 ITR 300 (Allahabad) 2. Novo Nordisk India P. Ltd., [2018] 95 taxmann.com 225 (Kar.) (E) Reopening was barred by limitation – The Ld. Senior Counsel explained that the AO had resorted to Clause (c) of Section 149(1) of the Act 26 I.T.A No. 1894/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2000-01 Page No Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P. Patel & 81 ors. whic…

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. SMT. MANJULABEN BIPINCHANDRA PATEL, BARODA

ITA 44/AHD/2020[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

…One Lakh or more. He submitted that this condition was not fulfilled as the AO had not quantified the amount of escapement for the different years in the reason as recorded by him. He further relied on the followings decisions: 1. Mahesh Kumar Gupta vs. CIT, 363 ITR 300 (Allahabad) 2. Novo Nordisk India P. Ltd., [2018] 95 taxmann.com 225 (Kar.) (E) Reopening was barred by limitation – The Ld. Senior Counsel explained that the AO had resorted to Clause (c) of Section 149(1) of the Act 26 I.T.A No. 1894/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2000-01 Page No Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P. Patel & 81 ors. whic…

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. SMT. MANJULABEN BIPINCHANDRA PATEL, BARODA

ITA 43/AHD/2020[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

…One Lakh or more. He submitted that this condition was not fulfilled as the AO had not quantified the amount of escapement for the different years in the reason as recorded by him. He further relied on the followings decisions: 1. Mahesh Kumar Gupta vs. CIT, 363 ITR 300 (Allahabad) 2. Novo Nordisk India P. Ltd., [2018] 95 taxmann.com 225 (Kar.) (E) Reopening was barred by limitation – The Ld. Senior Counsel explained that the AO had resorted to Clause (c) of Section 149(1) of the Act 26 I.T.A No. 1894/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2000-01 Page No Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P. Patel & 81 ors. whic…

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. SMT. MANJULABEN BIPINCHANDRA PATEL, BARODA

ITA 42/AHD/2020[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2001-02

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

…One Lakh or more. He submitted that this condition was not fulfilled as the AO had not quantified the amount of escapement for the different years in the reason as recorded by him. He further relied on the followings decisions: 1. Mahesh Kumar Gupta vs. CIT, 363 ITR 300 (Allahabad) 2. Novo Nordisk India P. Ltd., [2018] 95 taxmann.com 225 (Kar.) (E) Reopening was barred by limitation – The Ld. Senior Counsel explained that the AO had resorted to Clause (c) of Section 149(1) of the Act 26 I.T.A No. 1894/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2000-01 Page No Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P. Patel & 81 ors. whic…

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. SMT. MANJULABEN BIPINCHANDRA PATEL, BARODA

ITA 41/AHD/2020[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2000-01

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

…One Lakh or more. He submitted that this condition was not fulfilled as the AO had not quantified the amount of escapement for the different years in the reason as recorded by him. He further relied on the followings decisions: 1. Mahesh Kumar Gupta vs. CIT, 363 ITR 300 (Allahabad) 2. Novo Nordisk India P. Ltd., [2018] 95 taxmann.com 225 (Kar.) (E) Reopening was barred by limitation – The Ld. Senior Counsel explained that the AO had resorted to Clause (c) of Section 149(1) of the Act 26 I.T.A No. 1894/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2000-01 Page No Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P. Patel & 81 ors. whic…

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

ITA 40/AHD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

…One Lakh or more. He submitted that this condition was not fulfilled as the AO had not quantified the amount of escapement for the different years in the reason as recorded by him. He further relied on the followings decisions: 1. Mahesh Kumar Gupta vs. CIT, 363 ITR 300 (Allahabad) 2. Novo Nordisk India P. Ltd., [2018] 95 taxmann.com 225 (Kar.) (E) Reopening was barred by limitation – The Ld. Senior Counsel explained that the AO had resorted to Clause (c) of Section 149(1) of the Act 26 I.T.A No. 1894/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2000-01 Page No Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P. Patel & 81 ors. whic…

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

ITA 39/AHD/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

…One Lakh or more. He submitted that this condition was not fulfilled as the AO had not quantified the amount of escapement for the different years in the reason as recorded by him. He further relied on the followings decisions: 1. Mahesh Kumar Gupta vs. CIT, 363 ITR 300 (Allahabad) 2. Novo Nordisk India P. Ltd., [2018] 95 taxmann.com 225 (Kar.) (E) Reopening was barred by limitation – The Ld. Senior Counsel explained that the AO had resorted to Clause (c) of Section 149(1) of the Act 26 I.T.A No. 1894/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2000-01 Page No Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P. Patel & 81 ors. whic…

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

ITA 38/AHD/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

…One Lakh or more. He submitted that this condition was not fulfilled as the AO had not quantified the amount of escapement for the different years in the reason as recorded by him. He further relied on the followings decisions: 1. Mahesh Kumar Gupta vs. CIT, 363 ITR 300 (Allahabad) 2. Novo Nordisk India P. Ltd., [2018] 95 taxmann.com 225 (Kar.) (E) Reopening was barred by limitation – The Ld. Senior Counsel explained that the AO had resorted to Clause (c) of Section 149(1) of the Act 26 I.T.A No. 1894/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2000-01 Page No Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P. Patel & 81 ors. whic…

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

ITA 37/AHD/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

…One Lakh or more. He submitted that this condition was not fulfilled as the AO had not quantified the amount of escapement for the different years in the reason as recorded by him. He further relied on the followings decisions: 1. Mahesh Kumar Gupta vs. CIT, 363 ITR 300 (Allahabad) 2. Novo Nordisk India P. Ltd., [2018] 95 taxmann.com 225 (Kar.) (E) Reopening was barred by limitation – The Ld. Senior Counsel explained that the AO had resorted to Clause (c) of Section 149(1) of the Act 26 I.T.A No. 1894/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2000-01 Page No Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P. Patel & 81 ors. whic…

Showing 1–20 of 71 · Page 1 of 4